Without conclusive evidence, what the intelligence agencies would 
call "confirmation" rather than "high confidence", we are left to 
speculate over alternative explanations. The main scenario that troubles
 me is that one of the more extreme Islamist rebel factions did it in 
order to trick Western powers into attacking the Assad regime. This 
rests mainly upon analysis of motives. The Assad regime lacks a clear motive. For it to have 
perpetrated the 21 August gas attack would seem to be taking much too 
great a strategic risk for much too little tactical advantage -- 
especially as the war has already been going its way. However, some 
extreme Islamist rebel factions, especially the Jabhat al-Nusra, are 
foreign led Al Qaeda operations that might not be at all upset over a 
chemical attack on positions held by rival, primarily Syrian 
nationalist, rebel factions. Indeed, for them that might be seen as all 
to the good.
With respect to means, rather than motive, there are
 reports that seem credible, although largely ignored by most mainstream
 Western media, that Al Qaeda cells busted in Iraq and in Turkey were producing or in possession of sarin. The "lack of flight activity or 
missile launches" and rockets being used instead could be interpreted as
 actually pointing more towards the rebels, who have such rockets, than 
the Assad regime which might have preferred to use the more accurate 
means of delivery so close to their own positions.
We should 
consider what the effect would be if there is a US attack upon the Assad
 forces as a result of the 21 August gas attack if it is actually a 
successful Al Qaeda engineered hoax. Not only does it not deter the 
Assad regime from chemical attacks it isn't responsible for but it would
 positively encourage additional chemical attacks by the actual 
culprits. Shouldn't we have more than "high confidence" that we would 
not be making such a terrible blunder?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Abusive comments will be deleted.